California hunting likely will be lead-free by 2016

Those who hunt with lead ammunition in California don’t want to believe it’s a foregone conclusion that a bill calling for a ban of all lead shot and bullets used by hunters will be approved by the State Legislature.

But if one looks at the history of this state’s governing “wildlife biologists” in the State Capitol, this latest lead-free law surely will be another well-placed bullet in the tattered carcass that is California hunting.

On Tuesday, the California Assembly Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife will hear AB 711, a bill introduced in February by Assemblymember Anthony Rendon (D-Lakewood). If passed and signed by Gov. Brown, AB 711 will take AB 821, which banned the use of lead ammo in the state’s condor range, and extend the lead-free zone to the entire state.

The ban on lead ammunition for hunters likely will happen, probably as soon as the 2016 hunting season following a two-year grace period to allow California hunters to use their remaining lead. All of us who hunt may as well get used to paying 40 to 50 percent more or higher for quality, non-lead ammunition.

Add on the other many gun control and bullet control measures taking dead aim on guns and ammo in California, and the future is not bright for gun enthusiasts in this state.

It’s even darker for hunters.

“If we are going to save the world then let's do it without the political garbage and rely on scientific proof and experience of life itself rather than keeping politicians in office who cave to special interests so they both can maintain power over the people,” said Joe Busalacchi, gun and ammunitions expert, writer and nationally-known field tester of guns and ammunition.

But despite rejection by the EPA and even the California Fish and Wildlife Commission, the advocates to ban lead know the California legislature is soft enough to push it through. They’ll do that just as they over the years passed dubious ocean protection plans, banned hunting of apex predators like mountain lions and stripped away the time-honored tradition of hunters to use dogs to pursue bears and bobcats.

Then there are the very strange bedfellows sponsoring this legislation. Audubon has teamed with Defenders of Wildlife and the Humane Society of the United States to back this latest ammo bill. The Humane Society’s main goal, as stated by its director, is to end all forms of hunting in the U.S., starting with California.

They’ll get inside help from Fish and Wildlife Commission president Michael Sutton, who is executive director and vice president of the Pacific Flyway for National Audubon. No conflict of interest there, right? Sutton was a secretly-paid lobbyist on the Commission for the Packard Foundation during the corrupt Marine Life Protection Act process. Now he’s playing the same not-so-secret role for Audubon, pecking away again at sportsmen’s rights in broad daylight.

Dan Taylor, Audubon California’s Sacramento-based policy director, believes in his heart that all hunters must rally behind the lead ban or lose any support they have from non-hunters in the state. He truly believes, based on dubious scientific backing, that the lead ban will save birds and wildlife and keep hunters and their families from ingesting fragmented lead in shot-up, tainted game.

“I count hunters among my friends, my associates,” Taylor said. “I would not be involved, and Audubon would not be involved if we felt like this was a backdoor way to deal with hunting. It is not.”

“It’s another political move to stop hunting in this state,” Rohman said.

Dan Richards, former Fish and Game Commissioner of Upland, was part of the Commission that booted the same anti-hunting groups out when they presented their lead-free agenda to the Commission. As a well-informed commissioner, Richards steadfastly demanded sound science and data before voting. He joined his other commissioners and voted unanimously against the lead ban.

“This is really another in a long line of pathetic and misguided pieces of legislation advanced by enviro-terrorist groups who have an anti-hunting and anti-fishing agenda,” said Richards, a successful land developer and builder in Upland.

“We were presented factual, non-debated proof that the studies pursued and advanced by the Audubon Society and the Humane Society was unequivocally, fatally flawed because of the admitted bias of the researchers and their admission of omitting data that was not favorable to their intended result. Any honest scientist would automatically discount and not consider such junk science.”